About your Search

20130416
20130424
STATION
MSNBCW 11
CNNW 9
KNTV (NBC) 2
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 29
Search Results 0 to 28 of about 29 (some duplicates have been removed)
it as enemy combatant, military court. i know john mccain, lindsey graham, couple of others are pushing for that. you need a little more evidence to know whether you can do that. you really have to know, did he become part of the terrorist war against the united states? these e-mails and texts that they're discovering kind of make a pretty good case that he was part of a group that's at war against the united states. if you can make that case, then you could try him in a military court. you could try him in guantanamo bay and not have the spectacle of this trial having to take place in boston or some other place where they would change venue. >> are you sure about military court? as i understand, it was for noncitizens and for foreign nationals. >> if a citizen becomes part of the war effort against the united states -- let's take an example like this. let's take the second world war. let's say an american citizen went to germany and joined the nazi army and invaded the united states, we could try that person in a military court. now, the nature of this war is so ambiguous, you're going
cain, lindsey graham, they are suggesting. >> that could take him out of the american criminal justice system and put him into some other kind of system. it's not quite clear. a military tribunal, perhaps being sent to guantanamo. in any case the obama administration has shown absolutely no interest in that idea and every indication is that he will be tried as a criminal defendant in an american criminal courtroom. >> lindsey graham who himself is a military attorney, has spent 30 years in the u.s. air force, he insists he wants tsarnaev to be tried in american civilian court, but that didn't preclude at least for now naming him an enemy combatant to try to question him to see if there are other bombs out there, other individuals who may be involved. sort of this imminent threat notion. is he on sound legal ground, lindsey graham, when he says, yes, he'll go before a civil trial, but at least for now name him an enemy combatant so he can be questioned? >> well, the obama administration has established a policy of a so-called public safety exception to the miranda rule where for some period of
by using the normal criminal procedures. >> because lindsey graham and others say, yes, he should be tried as a u.s. citizen, should be tried in a u.s. civilian court, but that can await this process of doing some serious interrogation of him and designating him as an enemy combatant in the meantime. all of this is moot right now, because as you know, yesterday, he was formally given his miranda rights and a judge magistrate at his bed side with a court-appointed attorney, a public defender. this is moot as the obama administration has made its decision. is lindsey graham on sound legal ground, saying he should be tried in a civilian court, but held and questioned as an enemy combatant? >> i think the only fair answer to that question is we don't know. because it's never been done before in american history to have some sort of hybrid combatant and criminal proceeding. we do know from jake tapper's reporting, there was an interrogation of tsavraev. and he did disclose his position that there was no broader conspiracy here. just him and his pressure. it seems like the justice department and
are following today along with our top story out of boston. just yesterday senator lindsey graham warned islam is extremists are still a serious threat to our nation. >> our nation is at war, the enemy is radical islam, defined as the taliban, al-qaida, and affiliated groups. the question i have regarding this case, is there any association between these two individuals and the groups i just named to allow enemy combatant status to be conferred upon the suspect in boston. jenna: we now know according to the white house that is not going to happen. senator lindsey graham republican of south carolina is a member of the judiciary committee and stepped out of a hearing to join us. nice to have you back on the program. >> thank you very much. jenna: let's talk a little bit about what you had to say about radical islam. you say yo we need to up our game. what specifically do you mean by upping our game against radical islam. >> the first thing we need to do is reject the narrative of this administration that osama bin laden is dead, the wars are receding and we are all safe. they've been trying to s
terrorist organizations that he has knowledge of. >> reporter: lindsey graham says the enemy combatant designation would allow them to question dzhokhar tsarnaev without a lawyer saying none of that information could be used against him. dianne feinstein argues question can happen for a limited amount of time without calling him an enemy combatant. it let's investigators question a suspect about any imminent threat. >> i am not worried about whether they can convicted. the question is, what else would they have been up to? who are their associates? how did he become radicalized? is there a chechynian connection. that's what has to be discovered. >> reporter: there is also debate about tamerlan tsarnaev shot dead during the manhunt. they interviewed him at the request of russia and dropped the matter after asking for more specific information from russia the fbi never received. >> why is this fbi interview important? because if he was on the radar and they let him go, he was on the russian's radar, why wasn't a flag put on him. >> reporter: michael mccall says he and fellow republican,
debate, he fled with his tail between his legs. senator lindsey graham and senator talked about obama not try him as an enemy combatants. it was said to see him go, he was a fine figure and a state senator, isn't it? >> al a high state legislature is much more sophisticated than we saw here today. >> let's talk about lindsey graham. sang the government should have left dzhokhar tsarnaev as an enemy combat and, at least on the table as a possibility. >> it is not permissible under the law. you cannot treat an american citizen who is accused of committing an american crime against mostly american citizens in boston as an enemy combatants. it would turn our country -- >> it has never happened before. >> into martial law. the supreme court struck that down and american citizens were charged with crimes and this fellow is being charged with an ordinary crime that anybody could be charged with the team made a bomb to kill his mother-in-law. it does not require any allegation of terrorism. the idea we can deny and trial by jury, speedy trial, all of the things in the constitution and the bil
a top republican like lindsey graham. >> the only thing you need to know about lindsey gram right now is that he's running for re-election. even though he knows better, even though he knows that dzhokhar, for example, is not going to be tried as an enemy combatant, even though he knows his allegations against the president are ridiculous, it's a way of him scoring political points. i'll say, you know, i don't think there's anything wrong as you were pointing out asking questions about, okay, did the fbi follow the right course here? >> the investigation. >> absolutely. but when you go for this nakedly political point instead, you actually undermine those sorts of honest investigations. because it turns it into political football rather than a real inquiry into what happened and if there was anything we could do or anything we could learn. >> i think, joan, there is a legitimate questions one could raise, whether i agree with them or you agree with them or not. >> right. >> but to rev up benghazi, too? it is clear they're trying to get all kind of old political points, mixing in with n
court. i know john mccain, lindsey graham, couple of others are pushing for that. you need a little more evidence to know whether you can do that. you really have to know, did he become part of the terrorist war against the united states? these e-mails and texts that they're discovering kind of make a pretty good case that he was part of a group that's at war against the united states. if you can make that case, then you could try him in a military court. you could try him in guantanamo bay and not have the spectacle of this trial having to take place in boston or some other place where they would change venue. >> are you sure about military court? as i understand, it was for noncitizens and for foreign nationals. >> if a citizen becomes part of the war effort against the united states -- let's take an example like this. let's take the second world war. let's say an american citizen went to germany and joined the nazi army and invaded the united states, we could try that person in a military court. now, the nature of this war is so ambiguous, you're going to get a lot of arguments as to
bell lindsey graham, why isn't he being treated as an enemy combatant? that one to me -- >> what about benghazi? >> shut up. >> stephanie: i'll always have benghazi. it is my terror. no. >> i would never go thirsty again. i'll have another mint julep thank you. >> stephanie: the legal expert i heard this weekend said this is a nonstarter to treat him as enemy combatants. did he a crime on u.s. soil. >> peter king said this. >> i believe -- should be portrayed as enemy combatants. senator mccain, senator graham, senator ayotte, there are so many questions unanswered so many potential links to terrorism here. the battlefield is now in the united states. i believe he is an enemy combatant. ultimately, he will be tried in a civilian court and the statements taken from him cannot be used against him in that trial. right now, the only links we have as much as chechnyan involvement in the islamic movement. are there other conspirators out there? where do they get the radicalization? >> he sounds like pam gellar. might as well grow some gigantic boobs. >> stephanie: run-on sentence please, for
. again, on this sunday. mike, thanks. >>> south carolina senator lindsey graham is leading the charge to label the boston marathon suspect an enemy combatant. he explained why on cnn this morning. take a listen. >> when the public safety exception expires and it will soon this man, in my view, should be designated as a potential enemy combatant and we should be allowed to question him for intelligence gathering purposes to find out about future attacks and terrorist organizations that may exist that he has knowledge of and that evidence cannot be used against him in trial. >> the american civil liberties union, aclu, opposes this, "we must not waiver from our tried and true justice system, even in the most difficult of times. denial of rights is un-american and will only make it harder to obtain a fair conviction." how will this play out politically? with me, stephen smith of "the boston globe," dave weigel and lynn sweet of the chicago sun-times. good to see you all on this sunday. lynn, let me start with you here at least. four our republican senators joined in lindsey graham's call
that's the wrong legal path. senator lindsey graham of south carolina has said tsarnaev should be questioned by u.s. intelligence agencies. and then put on trial before a military commission, perhaps even at guantanamo bay in cuba. the obama administration has insisted that criminal trials can be just as effective, and tsarnaev is an american citizen, which could complicate putting him in a military court. the actual filing of criminal charges. that could come quite quickly. even within the next day or so. and the -- he would then appear before a federal magistrate. if he is not well enough to leave the hospital, that hearing could actually be done in his hospital room. alex? >> okay, pete, so what point does he get an attorney? >> well, he gets a lawyer during this questioning process for the next 48 hours. under this rule. he has no right to the miranda right. once he exercises his miranda warning, though -- once he exercises his miranda rights he has the choice to stop answering questions. but what the justice department says is, most people in these cases, surprisingly enou
advocates, republicans, are saying such as lindsey graham are -- we understand, they say, we understand he's going to be tried in civilian court but start the questioning -- treat him as an enemy combatant under the law of war. question him by intelligence people. get all the intel you can. then turn him over to the civ civilian authorities. that's what they advocate. that's not going to happen, the administration has decided. he'll be questioned first by this special group set up in the last couple of years in terror cases called the high value detainee interrogation group, fbi cia, dod. they don't have a long time to do that, probably no more than a day or so. then he'll be begin his miranda warning and we'll see if he continues to talk. in other terrorism cases, surprisingly, these people do keep talking. >> mike rogers, chairman, do you have a view how he should be treated in the criminal justice system? >> he's a citizen of the united states. i think that brings all of those protections of the u.s. constitution under the public safety exception, however, i do believe that the fbi has
their fingerprints? voters? records? >> let me give a shout-out to marco rubio and john mccain and lindsey graham who aren't backing down. some free advice to the republican party. republican party lost the hispanic vote. if there isn't some effort to reach out for a lot of the people who live in this country you can kiss off any chance, bill, for any foreseeable future -- >> chris: yeah, bill. [ laughter ] let me say on bill's defense he is pro-immigration reform. >> i'm more skeptical of it now than i was six or seven months ago for this reason, with all due respect. let's have serious public policy arguments about this and begin asking how this man who has been reported to the f.b.i. in 2011, went abroad six or seven months came back and had russian passport. and no problem at all. maybe someone should look at that and look at the border security before we move ahead with 880-page immigration bill. >> the bill is based on border security. >> would it help -- >> we should ask these questions and we should maybe have more detailed questions asked for people who come from certain countries, yes. >> w
out to marco rubio and john mccain and lindsey graham, who aren't backing down, and free advice to the republican party. the republican party lost the hispanic vote huge time, and if there isn't some effort to reach out for a lot of the people who live in this country, you can kiss off any chance, bill, for any foreseeable future. >> yeah, bill. let me just say, on bill's defense, he's actually pro immigration reform. >> i'm more skeptical of it now than i was six or seven months ago, and again for this reason, with all due respect. let's have serious public policy arguments about this. let's talk about how this man, reported by the fbi in 2011, went to russia for six months, came back in the country with a russian or kyrgyz passport. let's have border security first. >> the bill is based on border security. >> and would it help with this problem? >> we should ask these questions. we should maybe have more detailed questions asked for people who come from certain countries, yes. >> we agree on that. >> thank you, panel. see you next week. make sure to follow us on twitter @foxne
countries -- cases in this country. today senator lindsey graham urged the white house to reconsider its decision. >> i'm asking this administration to leave on the table the option if the effort warrants to designate this individual as an enemy combatant. the ability to have access to this suspect without a lawyer present together intelligence about a future attack is absolutely essential to our national security. >> democratic congressman adam shift, a member of the house intelligence committee is "outfront" and he is also a former federal prosecutor. we now that dzhokhar, suspect number two, has been read his miranda rights. sow won't be designated as an enemy combatant. but if he was labelled an enemy combatant, he wouldn't have been entitled to a lawyer and a jury trial. they could have asked him a lot of other questions without a lawyer present that may or may not be relevant to national security. now why did they make this decision not to go for enemy combatant status? do they think they have so much evidence in this case that they can go ahead with the civilian jury trial and the
an enemy combatant are those republicans, among them john mccain and lindsey graham. but there's others, they say basically he should be treated as an enemy combatant for now and then handed over to civilian authorities. the information we're learning about his inability to communicate right now throws a wrench into a lot of that. but on the other side, we heard today from the chairman of the intelligence committee of the house, mike rogers, and here is his perspective on why he should not be treated like an enemy combatant. >> he's a citizen of the united states. i think that brings all of the protections of the u.s. constitution. under the public safety exception, however, i do believe that the fbi has a period of time to try to determine what threats are there today. we don't know if there's other devices. we don't know if there's other people. i think mirandizing him up front would be a horrible idea. >> so there are really a series of questions there. first, should he be treated as a criminal -- excuse me, as a -- i want to make sure i get it right, as an enemy combatant. that ques
including john mccain and lindsey graham, they have suggested that e he should be treated as an enemy combat t combatant. let me read from the statement just released. the suspect based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant sts. we are encouraged to have our team involved and working together intelligence about how these terrible acts were committed and the possible of future attacks. a decision to not read miranda rights to the suspect was sound and in our national security interests. but they go one step further, avery, and say he shouldn't be tried as a normal u.s. citizen but an enemy combatant. what do you say to senator mccain, senator graham, peter king of the house intelligence committee who all four of them have issued this statement? >> respectfully, wolf, this is an american citizen naturalized committing alleged crimes on american soil. there's no question but that this case belongs in an article three a federal district court. the federal courts in boston have an enormous experience in dealing with terrorism. i'm mystified at that kind of statement.
, lindsey graham, kelly ayotte, peter king, they released a statement, the suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combat tant status. we do not want the suspect to remain silent. we have concerns that limiting this investigation to 48 hours and exclusively relying on the public safety exception to miranda could very well be a national security mistake. is this realistic he would be named as an enemy combat talent, denying him rights even though's u.s. citizen, he was naturalized on september 11th of last year and he was arrested in the united states? >> no, this is a deep philosophical division between the obama administration and some of the republican -- sorry about this and what that means is the obama administration has said the criminal justice system can make this work, the criminal can handle national security risks like this person, terrorists have been prosecuted, moussaoui. this administration is committed to using the american courts there are some critics, like senator mccain, like senator graham, who say that's too big a risk, that we have too m
's some talk in washington, senator lindsey graham among others, saying that he should be treated as an enemy combatant, at least for a time, to get as much information as they can during the investigation. what's your feeling on that? >> well, i think, first of all, you need the right facts in order to be able to charge that. the federal government is still determining what was the motive of these two young men. are they connected to anybody else? until they do that work, until we finish this investigation, that question may even be premature, unless you have a basis for it. i do think that the federal government has had a good track record in civil cases here, understanding what forum people should be in in order to get the best information. but i think we have to be confident. i am, having worked with them this week, is that they're focused on getting information they need to bring the appropriate charges. they can always be updated. and i think that they will make the right decision based upon what they know about this investigation. >> we heard from the boston police commissi
senator lindsey graham, specifically from senator john mccain for the suspect to be treated as an enemy combatant. how is legal action at this point most likely to move forward? >> reporter: well, the obama administration would never go for that, partly as a policy matter. they have made it quite clear that civilian courts are up to the task and they think in many ways better than military tribunals which are untested. civilian courts have convicted lots of terrorism defendants. it will be a federal case. they'll charge him withes with use of a weapons of mass destruction. the maximum penalty is the death penalty. the government will have to decide whether to seek that or not. there's an additional wrinkle here. he is an american citizen. he was a naturalized citizen last year oddly on 9/11 of last year, and there is an open legal question about whether even if the government wanted to, it could declare an american citizen captured on u.s. soil as an enemy combatant. it's an untested question. the government tried to do it in the case of jose padilla several years ago and as that case w
got in terms of a note that was handed to me talking about a few senators, lindsey graham, john mccain, kelly ayotte, congressman peter king, all of whom have said this suspect based on his actions clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status. we do not want this suspect to remain silent. talk about that in terms of what prosecutors are doing right now. is that the path down which prosecutors and any investigators are going right now? >> well, it's unclear whether or not they're going down that path to identify and designate him as an enemy combatant but they should at least go down the path to determine whether or not that is the designation they should make for this particular person. then they should do it based on our national security, national interest to determine whether or not identifying him as an enemy combatant will actually enhance our national security and national interest. >> what about the charges? what do you expect them to be against dzhokhar. >> well, if he's not designated as an enemy combat eant he wille charged federally. the first decision has to b
, republican senators lindsey graham, kelly ayotte, congressman peter king a short time ago, issued a statement this morning asking for the suspect to be tried as an enemy combatant. they said, in part, "we do not want the suspect to remain silent." senator chambliss, vice chair of the subcommittee on violence said "i'm disappointed that it appears this administration is once again relying on miranda's public safety exception to gather intelligence which only allows, at best, a 48-hour waiting period that may expire since the suspect has been critically wounded." will there be a public outcry, ed o'keefe, about all that's given, the suspect is a natural citizen? >> with those five senators -- lawmakers, certainly the outcry could potentially be beginning. it's no surprise that that quintet, if you will, is calling for the administration to handle him as what they describe as an enemy combat talent. the obama administration doesn't use that term anymore it allows for an indefinite detention of someone under national security concerns. that's what they are hoping for. we will see what the justice
president obama is calling it terror. lindsey graham sweet twooetieet telling him to remain silent. that would be the last thing. somehow terrorism makes it fine, right? >> we don't really know if this is terrorism. we don't know if there's political motivations. >> we don't know. we have to establish the definition of terror. everybody was terrorized. the political definition is something else. secondly, john ralston said imagine if you're the person subjected to the recriminations you want to put forth. be very careful if something happens in your family and your kid does something and your kid is on the terror list and the no-fly list, that's a different kettle of fish. it's unfamiliar evil versus familiar evil. when you made the point about we've incubated in our own culture a homegrown terrorist, that strikes terror at the heart of america. guess what? hey, ask the minority people, we're familiar with homegrown domestic terrorists. those ain't muslim, they're christian and twisting the cross and doing things. we have to be very careful about assuming that immediately this was
, or was this a conspiracy. that's where our focus is right now. >> i want to play for you what republican senator lindsey graham said after the white house announced earlier in the day that the survivining suspec the 19-year-old, would not be questioned as an enemy combat t combatant. listen to this. >> i'm asking this administration to leave on the table the option, if the evidence warrants, to designate this individual as an enemy combatant. what do we know? we know that these two individuals embrace radical islamist thought, that there's ample evidence this was an attack inspired by radical ideology, they were not trying to rob a bank in boston. >> what do you think about that, congressman? >> well, fifrst thing, i respec the senator's point of view, but i disagree. number one, you have to look at the legal aspect of this. when that provision that you don't have to give miranda rights is used, that -- you have to show a connection to al qaeda. in this situation, we at this point have no connection to al qaeda whatsoever. so the other issue is, this is an american citizen. when you have an american ci
Search Results 0 to 28 of about 29 (some duplicates have been removed)